Currently 7-14 days. Apparently.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
As virus kills, NYC shortens deadline for claiming dead
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City deals with a mounting coronavirus death toll and dwindling morgue space, the city has shortened the amount of time it will hold unclaimed remains before they are buried in the city's public cemetery. Under the new policy, the medical examiner’s office will keep...
They are unclaimed bodies. NYC has just shortened the time they would be held at the city morgue from 30 days to 14 but not all of those being buried necessarily died from the virus. The morgue needs the room due to the increase in Covid-19 deaths, but people are still dying from other causes. And, again, and at this time, these are all unclaimed bodies.
However- if necessary, per the link - bodies may be stored there short term until mortuaries can claim them - but they will not be buried in mass graves as shown in the video. Which is where the whole "NYC prepared to bury bodies in city parks" rumor started. Hart Island is now a city park.
Nurses and teachers have tough demanding jobs. But compensation wise, nurses get paid by the hour which is a much better deal.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
I started this over 4 hours ago, forgoing sleep, trying to get the wording right and now I just see The Mom's warning, but I really think it's important to show an interpretation of the math behind the spread. Like everyone keeps saying, exponential growth is hard to visualize. So I am going to take the chance to still post it, but I deleted the quote to which I was responding. I find the potential math interesting, and I thought others might too. I'm not trying to be argumentative.
***
Lets do some math. The estimated introduction date into the US is mid-January. By mid-March, the social distancing had started, Disney parks were closed, etc. So lets call it 2 months. 60 days. The epidemiologists assign a value of 4 days for the serial interval of COVID-19. Over 60 days that is 15 cycles.
For each introduction event. Count 15 cycles. If we assume R0 = 2.2
1 intro => 2.2, 4.8, 10.6, 23.4, 51.5, 113.4, 249.4, 548.8, 1207.3, 2656, 5843.2, 12,855, 28,281, 62,218,136,880 cases
There was a question regarding the effectiveness of contact tracing. Most people are not asymptomatic, but pre-symptomatic. Eventually, most people end up feeling something, even if it's minor. Now, everyone is hyper alert and more likely to watch and report symptoms. Look at the numbers, the first 4 cycles or 16 days (more than enough time for people to feel something) only results in 23 people potentially being infected (super spreading events excepted). That's not a lot of people to track down. If you carpet bomb test a person's family, friends, place of employment, gym, favorite restaurant or something you are going to find most of them, in many communities. Super-spreading events, high density locations are different, and would likely lead to regional lockdowns and wait for things to settle back down.
The Next Strain gene sequencing, I still don't really understand it, but it looks like there were two primary introductions into WA. One came direct from China, the other went to Canada and then came to WA. California looks like there were multiple introductions, but they didn't take off like the WA and NY introductions. The number of "descendants" is much lower. There was an introduction into Illinois from China, and I think maybe Arizona. The East Coast introductions, I haven't looked at too much. The article from yesterday, said there were at least 7 in New York but these introductions came a little later, end of January-mid February. You can see how much faster the numbers go up in cycles 8-15 vs 1-7. If we go back only 3 cycles (or an arrival of only 12 days later) the numbers change by quite a lot.
Now this is where people likely differ. I assume that many believe, many more people arrived in the US carrying the virus, than were actually required to get a spread rate of what we are seeing. Someone mentioned 20 cycles of growth, which IMO, is a way overestimate. I think there were very few introductions, if any, that had the opportunity, for a full 15 cycles of growth by mid-March. Some of them because travelers arrived a couple weeks later, dropping them down to 12 cycles or fewer (East Coast intros and community spread for non-intro points). Some because the transmission fizzled out either because of the discoveries in Seattle, LA, and the Bay Area that led to those locations starting social distancing earlier, the effect of population density, or just lack of contact. IMO, overall, the number of introductions measures in the dozens and not the hundreds.
Ten 15-cycle introductions = 1.37 million cases, intro date of Jan 15th
Ten 12-cycle introductions = 120,885 cases, intro date of Jan 27th
Ten 10-cycle introductions = 26,560 cases, intro date of February 5th
That's a big difference "20 days later" makes. You can have a lot more "10-cycle introductions" without the numbers spiking horribly. It takes like 50 10-cycle introductions to equal one 15-cycle introductions.
Since mid-March to now we've had another 6 cycles. But what's the transmission rate with social distancing? That's the big unknown. I saw one number that, the effective R with our measures, is closer to 1.2, so just for an estimate.
For every 100,000 cases in mid-March, with an R = 1.2, and 6 cycles would be
120,000, 144,000, 172,800, 207,360, 248,832, 298,598
Or triple the cases.
So if we had 500,000 then, that's 1.5 million now. 1 million then, 3 million now, and so on.
That German study estimated 404,000 cases on March 17. But 11.85 million cases on March 31. Obviously, they think a lot more exponential growth happened between March 17th and March 31. I don't even get that number. There are only 3-4 cycles between those dates. If you assume the original R0 = 2.2 that only gets you like 9.5 million after 4 cycles, 4.3 million after 3 cycles. And obviously we have been social distancing which should bring the effective R down. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, it's likely more than tripled since mid-March, whatever the starting number was, but it certainly isn't 11.85 million by the end of March or 26 million now either.
Now here's where pre-symptomatic vs symptomatic spread matters. So far these are just "potential" cases. But 100% of potential cases, don't turn into actual cases. There is some factor of efficiency. How many lines, simply fizzle out? This is a percentage, so it's less than 1. The math always leads to a smaller number than the original. We're talking the difference between 40% of cases turning into something vs 80%. Or 20% vs 50% or whatever the variation may be (I have no clue). Pre-symtomatic spread doesn't increase the number of potential cases. It does increase the percentage of cases that go from potential to actual. People that feel fine, go about their normal activities. People who feel sick, stay home from work, or at least skip their workout, or don't go out partying. The efficiency is part of what determines the difference between the R0 and the actual, effective R for a location. But another factor would be higher density places will have a higher R than low density even though they both start out in the same R0 place (WA vs NYC). R0 is a starting point, not a constant. Measles apparently has quite a range depending on population density, age, vaccination rates and other factors. The difference between the baseline, theoretical R0 and the effective R (which is apparently called RT) which is after ALL the localized factors sort themselves out, is why the modeling is changing as we get more real data. Pre-symtomatic spread pulls a number closer to the potential value, something else pulls the number away.
Anyway, later arrival, intentional and accidental disruptions of the transmission chains can change the outcome by a lot. My theory is that while the virus CAN move from person to person quite effectively when given the opportunity (as seen in the care facilities anywhere), the larger transmission chain is more fragile than "higher density," "more mass transit using," "less single family homes with yards and fences" Europeans and China have shown. Some areas like NO and NYC, people were really spreading it around, while in other places..density really matters. Micro vs macro sort of thing, I guess. Plus, the timeline was in our favor.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's a good sign for the return of concerts, sports, large weddings, megachurches and theme parks. But I expect, we'll rush back into things, make everything worse in the process, and blame it on what we did originally, and not what we did later.
***
Lets do some math. The estimated introduction date into the US is mid-January. By mid-March, the social distancing had started, Disney parks were closed, etc. So lets call it 2 months. 60 days. The epidemiologists assign a value of 4 days for the serial interval of COVID-19. Over 60 days that is 15 cycles.
For each introduction event. Count 15 cycles. If we assume R0 = 2.2
1 intro => 2.2, 4.8, 10.6, 23.4, 51.5, 113.4, 249.4, 548.8, 1207.3, 2656, 5843.2, 12,855, 28,281, 62,218,136,880 cases
There was a question regarding the effectiveness of contact tracing. Most people are not asymptomatic, but pre-symptomatic. Eventually, most people end up feeling something, even if it's minor. Now, everyone is hyper alert and more likely to watch and report symptoms. Look at the numbers, the first 4 cycles or 16 days (more than enough time for people to feel something) only results in 23 people potentially being infected (super spreading events excepted). That's not a lot of people to track down. If you carpet bomb test a person's family, friends, place of employment, gym, favorite restaurant or something you are going to find most of them, in many communities. Super-spreading events, high density locations are different, and would likely lead to regional lockdowns and wait for things to settle back down.
The Next Strain gene sequencing, I still don't really understand it, but it looks like there were two primary introductions into WA. One came direct from China, the other went to Canada and then came to WA. California looks like there were multiple introductions, but they didn't take off like the WA and NY introductions. The number of "descendants" is much lower. There was an introduction into Illinois from China, and I think maybe Arizona. The East Coast introductions, I haven't looked at too much. The article from yesterday, said there were at least 7 in New York but these introductions came a little later, end of January-mid February. You can see how much faster the numbers go up in cycles 8-15 vs 1-7. If we go back only 3 cycles (or an arrival of only 12 days later) the numbers change by quite a lot.
Now this is where people likely differ. I assume that many believe, many more people arrived in the US carrying the virus, than were actually required to get a spread rate of what we are seeing. Someone mentioned 20 cycles of growth, which IMO, is a way overestimate. I think there were very few introductions, if any, that had the opportunity, for a full 15 cycles of growth by mid-March. Some of them because travelers arrived a couple weeks later, dropping them down to 12 cycles or fewer (East Coast intros and community spread for non-intro points). Some because the transmission fizzled out either because of the discoveries in Seattle, LA, and the Bay Area that led to those locations starting social distancing earlier, the effect of population density, or just lack of contact. IMO, overall, the number of introductions measures in the dozens and not the hundreds.
Ten 15-cycle introductions = 1.37 million cases, intro date of Jan 15th
Ten 12-cycle introductions = 120,885 cases, intro date of Jan 27th
Ten 10-cycle introductions = 26,560 cases, intro date of February 5th
That's a big difference "20 days later" makes. You can have a lot more "10-cycle introductions" without the numbers spiking horribly. It takes like 50 10-cycle introductions to equal one 15-cycle introductions.
Since mid-March to now we've had another 6 cycles. But what's the transmission rate with social distancing? That's the big unknown. I saw one number that, the effective R with our measures, is closer to 1.2, so just for an estimate.
For every 100,000 cases in mid-March, with an R = 1.2, and 6 cycles would be
120,000, 144,000, 172,800, 207,360, 248,832, 298,598
Or triple the cases.
So if we had 500,000 then, that's 1.5 million now. 1 million then, 3 million now, and so on.
That German study estimated 404,000 cases on March 17. But 11.85 million cases on March 31. Obviously, they think a lot more exponential growth happened between March 17th and March 31. I don't even get that number. There are only 3-4 cycles between those dates. If you assume the original R0 = 2.2 that only gets you like 9.5 million after 4 cycles, 4.3 million after 3 cycles. And obviously we have been social distancing which should bring the effective R down. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, it's likely more than tripled since mid-March, whatever the starting number was, but it certainly isn't 11.85 million by the end of March or 26 million now either.
Now here's where pre-symptomatic vs symptomatic spread matters. So far these are just "potential" cases. But 100% of potential cases, don't turn into actual cases. There is some factor of efficiency. How many lines, simply fizzle out? This is a percentage, so it's less than 1. The math always leads to a smaller number than the original. We're talking the difference between 40% of cases turning into something vs 80%. Or 20% vs 50% or whatever the variation may be (I have no clue). Pre-symtomatic spread doesn't increase the number of potential cases. It does increase the percentage of cases that go from potential to actual. People that feel fine, go about their normal activities. People who feel sick, stay home from work, or at least skip their workout, or don't go out partying. The efficiency is part of what determines the difference between the R0 and the actual, effective R for a location. But another factor would be higher density places will have a higher R than low density even though they both start out in the same R0 place (WA vs NYC). R0 is a starting point, not a constant. Measles apparently has quite a range depending on population density, age, vaccination rates and other factors. The difference between the baseline, theoretical R0 and the effective R (which is apparently called RT) which is after ALL the localized factors sort themselves out, is why the modeling is changing as we get more real data. Pre-symtomatic spread pulls a number closer to the potential value, something else pulls the number away.
Anyway, later arrival, intentional and accidental disruptions of the transmission chains can change the outcome by a lot. My theory is that while the virus CAN move from person to person quite effectively when given the opportunity (as seen in the care facilities anywhere), the larger transmission chain is more fragile than "higher density," "more mass transit using," "less single family homes with yards and fences" Europeans and China have shown. Some areas like NO and NYC, people were really spreading it around, while in other places..density really matters. Micro vs macro sort of thing, I guess. Plus, the timeline was in our favor.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's a good sign for the return of concerts, sports, large weddings, megachurches and theme parks. But I expect, we'll rush back into things, make everything worse in the process, and blame it on what we did originally, and not what we did later.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
And now some actual news, I didn't see posted. The CDC has extended the "no sail" orders for cruises, up to 100 days.
WEDway Inc & Company LLC
Well-Known Member
I’d guess Pin Trading is done too
If they open anytime soon and if things have not improved/people are vocal about it, then yes. But pin trading is no more dirty than cash exchanging, and provides an income incentive often for Disney, as are Haircuts if you think of Harmony Barbershop, the guns on the Shootin' Arcade/Arcade machines in resorts that would have to be constantly disinfected, so who knows the future for sure. If things get drastically better, you will start to see some things return too.
You'll find a lot of bravery behind the keyboard, but in real life?
A couple of notes that have come my way.
Still talking about a best case scenario of early June, worst case of late September opening.
Phased reopening with MK first, Epcot last.
Some of the hydraulic systems in attractions are being drained for periods of extended non-operation.
There is little to no upkeep of the parks taking place, so it will take some time to get things show ready.
Pretty much every project that can be stopped has been stopped and will remain stopped for the foreseeable future.
Still talking about a best case scenario of early June, worst case of late September opening.
Phased reopening with MK first, Epcot last.
Some of the hydraulic systems in attractions are being drained for periods of extended non-operation.
There is little to no upkeep of the parks taking place, so it will take some time to get things show ready.
Pretty much every project that can be stopped has been stopped and will remain stopped for the foreseeable future.
Polynesia
Well-Known Member
If any group is going to go out in force it’s going to be the Disney fanatics. That was proven when Disney World shut down. The crowds were pretty large with everyone knowing why the parks were closing. As good news keeps coming out about peaking and being on the down side people will start to feel more comfortable again. Not everyone and not right away. But it will happen.
DisneyDebRob
Well-Known Member
Time frame is what I’ve been guessing for a long time. July or August sounds about right if the trends continue. Thanks for the info!
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Really hope they at least finish tron and guardians. The other Epcot things I understand putting on hold for now
peter11435
Well-Known Member
They will
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the update.
When air travel kicks in again the virus will spread whether people are traveling to Disney for pleasure or travel to any other place in the country for business. Airports are probably the biggest threats to reigniting host spots for the virus. If you look at where the virus has been the worst in the US it was in major cities which had lots of air travel associated with them. Will people that got to Disney get exposed to the virus? Absolutely... if not in the parks then in the airports when they travel there, to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Of course the other reality is you cannot continue to live in fear of a virus that is only rarely fatal. The fact is this mortality rate of the virus is about the same as the rate of paralysis from polio and the world didn't shut down before the polio vaccine was created. Polio was simply accepted as a fact of life, a scary fact of life but one none the less. This virus will be this generation's polio until a vaccine is found to eliminate it. How people ultimately decide to live with that reality is still unknown. Some will just go on with life and others will continue to live in fear, but the fact is everyone is going to get it at least once over the next few years unless a vaccine is found for it you simple can't eliminate the virus from lockdowns where people are still allowed to move beyond their homes. The only way to eliminate the virus without a vaccine would be in home quarantine for an extended period of time with absolutely no one allowed outside their homes and that isn't feasible.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Dates seem to be in line with the analyst who was showing no domestic park attendance through September. Any time open this summer would be a bonus.
Tron has already gotten so far that it would be difficult to just put it on hold... Who really knows how far Guardians has gotten since the majority of activity is inside a building closed from view. If they haven't gotten the actual steal work completed they could probably pay a penalty to the company producing the track and structure to get out of the contract and just sit on the project for as long as they wanted since the area is concealed from view... it will really depend on whether they see it costing more to complete vs more to just put it on hiatus. I don't think see Epcot as being a park they will really be that focused on until they can come to grips with the recovery of MK.
Kevin_W
Well-Known Member
That's a logical statement, but the evidence doesn't really bear it out. Several of the most-traveled airports are in cities without a significant number of cases.
- Status